The Folk Prophet

I've always found this such a strange claim to make. It's applying meaning to a word that the word doesn't mean.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/doctrine
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doctrine
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/doctrine
"Doctrine" means what is taught and accepted by an organization. Obviously, by definition of the word, doctrine changes in the Church. And it's strange to me to try and define "doctrine" as something it is not. There are many things that have been taught and accepted by the church that are now no longer taught or accepted.
It would make more sense to add an adjective to the word. Eternal doctrine doesn't change. Core doctrine doesn't change. God's doctrine doesn't change. Or the like. But just "doctrine" obviously changes.

I'm not sure government and taxes is sufficient to explain the fact that our house is worth 3 times the amount we originally bought it for 15ish years back though.

The pride cycle is a symptom (or indicator) more than a cause.

We need a private forum where we can talk about the moderators behind their backs!

#defundTheMods
 

Oh...I have no current complaints. I only claim RIGHT to be able to complain....hashtag ...#allModsAreBulliesWithBadges!

#defundTheMods
 

Oh...I have no current complaints. I only claim RIGHT to be able to complain....hashtag ...#allModsAreBulliesWithBadges!

We need a private forum where we can talk about the moderators behind their backs!

We need a private forum where we can talk about the moderators behind their backs!

3. It's always a bit odd to me to have a lay member state they're not sure how comfortable they are with something the church did as if the church is not led by God.

I'm not sure that's the end all of the temple recommend question though. When I'm asked if I keep the Word of Wisdom and say yes it's in light of no coffee, tea, alcohol, or tobacco usage. But..... I often consider whether my eating and drinking choices are in alignment with the Word of Wisdom and make adjustments. I don't think if I confessed that I sometimes have drunk too much Dr. Pepper that any church leader would say, "Well...then we can't issue you your temple recommend, garumph, harumph." But that doesn't mean it's all hunky-dory for me to be pounding 300oz of the stuff in a day.

God is very clearly racist AND sexist. I mean, first, he's white (which means he's racist). Second, he's the power class (racist). Third, He restricted the priesthood and other thing by race. He specifically declared a certain race "My people". I mean if that doesn't fit the modern definition of racist.... And let's not even get started with traditional marriage, polygamy and the patriarchy. 

3. It's always a bit odd to me to have a lay member state they're not sure how comfortable they are with something the church did as if the church is not led by God.

I'm not sure that's the end all of the temple recommend question though. When I'm asked if I keep the Word of Wisdom and say yes it's in light of no coffee, tea, alcohol, or tobacco usage. But..... I often consider whether my eating and drinking choices are in alignment with the Word of Wisdom and make adjustments. I don't think if I confessed that I sometimes have drunk too much Dr. Pepper that any church leader would say, "Well...then we can't issue you your temple recommend, garumph, harumph." But that doesn't mean it's all hunky-dory for me to be pounding 300oz of the stuff in a day.

3. It's always a bit odd to me to have a lay member state they're not sure how comfortable they are with something the church did as if the church is not led by God.

I understand why some are reticent to say such things, particularly with the harshness of the phrasing. But I don't think the idea was ever to specify another church as entirely belonging to the devil. But the idea behind specifying there are only 2 churches seems to me to be to teach a principle, not malign others. The principle is sound. Jesus's church is His church, and the foundation of all others is built by the lies, half-truths, deceptions, and workings of he who leads the fight against Christ's church...the devil. That doesn't mean every principle in every church but Christ's is satanic filth. All Satan has to do is convince someone of a single falsehood to lead them astray. And that's the principle and warning within the idea of there only being two churches. We are fully and completely guided by God, or we are not.

It only matters as to our own salvation. To suggest otherwise is to take away others' salvation against their choice and to claim God is entirely unfair.
I am fully confident that if I have terrible bedside manner and drive others away from the church because of my terrible bedside manner, that they'll have the same chance at exaltation as if they'd never met me. I'm also confident that if I'm doing my best but still have terrible bedside manner because I'm the moron that I am, that God will forgive me as I do my best to repent and change, despite failure upon failure. And I am fully confident that no matter how others treat me, in or out of the church, that my choice of salvation or damnation is completely and fully my own. And I'm also fully confident that if I purposefully go out and preach against the Gospel and Christ, or set a terrible example, or otherwise do Satan's work, that they only soul I'll ultimately be damning by those actions is my own.

The logic behind these examples kind of baffles me and isn't related to my thoughts. But I'm not interested in arguing. If people want to think the next low tide is a sign of the end of times, go for it.
Someone could try and argue that an eclipse was a fulfillment of "the sun will be darkened" and it would at least make sense. I think that's a pretty serious stretch. But maybe at least.
"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:"
That would be a reasonable (though flawed to me) argument to make.
Lest we forget however, here's the discussion:
me: Eclipses are common enough that it's a stretch to call them a sign.
mikbone: People have often associated eclipses with eras ending.
me: So what? People are superstitious and historically make all sorts of crazy stuff up.
mikbone: what about scriptures. Are they irrelevant?
me: ?????? Wha......????
This reply isn't really related to what I said. I don't disagree with any of it. God certainly could use an eclipse as a sign. I just don't think it's useful to apply "sign" to an event in reverse. The prophesy of the sign generally comes first, like you said. An event happening without the prophesy, particularly, when it's a natural common event... I don't find a lot of use in calling that a sign.
Anyhow, I've said my peace (piece? My piece of peace?). I'll step out now.

How can an eclipse be a sign of the end of times when eclipses have always occurred throughout history?
Hear ye, hear ye, in the end of days something will happen that......has happened since the earth, sun and moon were created and put in their orbits. But....you know...THIS time it's a sign....

What about all the signs in the heavens discussed in the scriptures?  Are those irrelevant too?

The fact that there has been superstitious association with anything at any given time is irrelevant to the signs of God.